Posted on 09/13/2011 4:17:31 PM PDT by John Semmens
A Florida law requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug test before receiving benefits is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU contends that the law is an unconstitutional “search and seizure.”
“Welfare must be made available based upon need,” explained ACLU spokesman Bertram Petty. “It cannot be made contingent upon passage of a drug test. Drug addiction is not a crime. Therefore, the state has no ‘probable cause’ for seizing anyone’s urine and subjecting it to any test.”
Petty dismissed the argument that applying for welfare benefits is a voluntary act and that no one is forced into the drug test. “Need is what forces a person into the welfare system,” Petty argued. “It has been widely accepted that drug addiction is a disabling condition that thrusts a person into a needful status. To insist that an addict is at fault for his own condition blames the victim.”
“We’re not denying that a person may contribute to his own decrepit condition,” Petty continued. “A lot of those in need got that way because they’re lazy or improvident. Yet, these people can pass the required drug test. Surely, a person who is disabled by drugs has a stronger claim on our sympathy than one who is simply lazy. For an addict to be denied benefits because of his affliction is discriminatory. It cannot be permitted.”
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/president%e2%80%99s-jobs-speech-wows-congress/
Funny stuff as always. In real life maybe we should make “free” drugs part of welfare. That way most of ‘em wouldn’t remember to vote!
holy cow, i almost bought this till i saw the AZ con tag. geez i was getting riled up.
They need taxpayers money to support their habit?
WELFARE must be the latest designer drug.
I’d give every addict a choice. Step into room A. Behind the door you’ll find every illegal drug ever made. There is only one catch: you have to take a lethal overdose. Enjoy! Or step into room B. You’ll be torn apart and eaten by a ravenous lion. Go ahead punk, make my day!
I think they should screen them for drugs, but get them rehabilitative help if they are found to be using drugs, not cut off the benefits. At least not unless they refuse the help.
Besides in this economy, they are at a double disadvantage. There are no jobs to be had, and they aren’t able to win or keep them if there were.
Not all drug addicts are drug addicts by choice. Some experimented to be sure, but other became addicted to pain killers when prescribed them by doctors.
Do we really want to be the kind of nation that lets people starve just because they got addicted to drugs? Wouldn’t it be kinder just to shoot them right there in the benefits office? There has to be a balance, we can’t bankrupt ourselves looking after drug addicts, but to just turn them out without any help at all, seems way too cold to me.
If the ACLU wins will that make it illegal to give Urines tests to Firefighters and Police Officers?
After all Drug addiction is no crime. No probable cause to seize their Urine.
Too noisy; give’m a hot shot.
If the ACLU is against it then it must be good public policy.
Having illegal drugs in your system is a crime. You can be arrested for it. Therefore just one reason to shoot down the ACLU’s assinine argument.
Welfare money can be based on anything society wants to base it on. People without kids may need more money than regular welfare gives them but they can’t get AFDC money because it’s contigent on having kids. Society can set ANY criteria it wants beyond “need”. Besides “need” is a subjective term and therefore it has to be defined and quantified anyway, so just as we define what “need” is, we can define who gets the money if they meet certain criteria.
ACLU being the commieland folks they are.
And should be headlined as such.
You should maybe understand addiction before you are so harsh. You can’t STOP being ADDICTED to something overnight, which is probably what you think judging by your attitude, which is the “Just stop doing it” attitude. Doesn’t work.
Well, the ACLU said it, so it must be true. This to me is prima facie a lie, since the substances themselves are illegal to possess. No possession, no addiction. First order predicate logic.
I think this law is scathingly brilliant, because it strikes directly at the corrupt heart of the dependent class upon which so much of the left's political power rests. No wonder they're foaming at the mouth in fear of this law.
WTF?
These are the same turd-piles that claim faggots, dykes, child molesters, baby-killers, etc. are ALL victims, when they make lifestyle choices and want the public to be FORCED to support those choices.
What a System!
I understand addiction perfectly. It’s the addicts I’m trying to get rid of. Hey, eat all you want; smoke until your lungs are scorched; shoot up until your eyes pop out! Liberalism has NO right or wrong. I do. But thanks for the advice.
You obviously don’t, it sickens me that you would sentence a drug addict to death just because they are an addict. Not all drug addicts are lying thieving criminals. Most are regular Joe’s. To say that you would give an addict two choices both resulting in death is disgusting and wrong on so many levels.
Yes. Yes they do. And they are getting it. My pill and meth addicted ex-DIL is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.